DSD... And Now DXD

[loudist]

Just had a communique with Pyramix.
There is a higher resolution format now called DXD.

Here is a link to the PDF acrobat file:

It seems to have a pretty good explanation of DXD, DSD, downsampleing, its warts and advantages etc.
Looks to be straight up.

[C.Lambrechts]

interesting ... thanks for the link Loudist.

[cdog]

DXD is a new label for existing Merging technology, aka *hype*, nothing more.

Its just super high rate PCM: 24 bits @ 352.8khz, 8 times more data than 24/44.1

Let me repeat: 8 times more data than 24/44.1

Its not higher res than DSD, technically its lower. It allows editing and various processing functiona which are not possible in the 1-bit DSD format.

I played around with Pyramix and "DXD" when I owned a Genex DSD recorder... the files are just too damn big to be practical - and you can forget about your favorite plug-ins.

This is an ill fated attempt to remarket DSD to recordists... it was developed as an archival format and its only practical use is as that.

PCM converters have come so far in terms of quality that there are no compelling reasons left to be recording multitrack DSD... people I played my "DXD" tracks for couldn't consistently tell the difference between them and the PCM tracks recorded with the same converter.

My conclusion was that PCM can be way better sounding than people think it can and DSD/"DXD" is not necessarily better, just bigger. The problem was PCM coverters sounded like shit early on and got a bad rap, so people with unlimited resources (like Sony/ Phillips) looked for and developed alternatives, all while PCM was busy getting better and better: the technology was maturing.

I'm not saying PCM is the "ultimate" digital format, its clearly not, but it is clearly the most practical format we have to record with right now, and right now its pretty damn good... see: AD16X

[Teacher]

Originally posted by cdog
DXD is a new label for existing Merging technology, aka *hype*, nothing more.

Its just super high rate PCM: 24 bits @ 352.8khz, 8 times more data than 24/44.1

Let me repeat: 8 times more data than 24/44.1

Its not higher res than DSD, technically its lower. It allows editing and various processing functiona which are not possible in the 1-bit DSD format.

I played around with Pyramix and "DXD" when I owned a Genex DSD recorder... the files are just too damn big to be practical - and you can forget about your favorite plug-ins.

This is an ill fated attempt to remarket DSD to recordists... it was developed as an archival format and its only practical use is as that.

i'm pretty sure everyone would of said the same in the 80's when talking about 24 bit & 96khz.....only time will tell

[Curve Dominant]

I appreciate a good laugh at least once a day.

This is Merging essentially saying they've made DSD better.

It's now 24 bits.

Woo-hoo.

Pop the champagne.

The waves of pure genius emanating from the folks at Merging is truly infectious.

Gee, maybe I'll start recording at 24 bit too!!!

That's hi-tech baby! Ciao ciao...

[hollywood_steve]

The only problem with DSD is that they are taking a technology that works well for a select group and trying to market it to everyone with a copy of PT-Free.

I record direct to disk with between 2 and 5 channels. I almost never process anything. The most "post production" work I do is summing 5ch down to stereo. For me DSD beats PCM hands down; and I base this on 14 months of regular comparison between the two.

On the other hand, if your recordings require you to move snare beats around, or "autotune" a vocalist who should never have set foot in a studio, then PCM and a PC full of plug-ins are just what you need.

Merging Technology is just another company trying to make a buck by selling their product to everyone they can find. If DSD was only marketed towards folks who do location, classical or other "purist" types of recording, there would be no arguments. But anyone who spends more time moving knobs than moving mics around will never be satisfied with this type of product.

[Hiwatt]

Well said hollywood.

[Adler]

I use Pyramix as my DAW (PCM Mode only; I do not have the DSD option) and I have a lot of respect for what Merging Technologies has brought to the market. However, I do agree that this notion of DXD being something new is a little ridiculous. It does after all, as mentioned earlier, operate in standard PCM at resolutions up to 32 bits and a sampling rate of 352.8 kHz. But is their marketing really any more aggregious than that of other pro audio manufacturers? I ask this question not to start a pissing contest, but to discuss the issue from another perspective. True, Merging does seem to be propagating all of the hype for which Sony/Philips has become so notorious. But...they do need to compete with the Digidesigns of the world in a market sense. Just so you know, I have never even heard DSD or worked with DXD, but I still love my Pyramix system (operating in PCM mode) all the same.

Just my thoughts,
Chris

[cdog]

My point about "DXD" is simple: if you have a need for editing/processing - you shouldn't be recording to DSD to begin with.

I have a lot of respect for folks like Steve (I wish the feeling was mutual) who do use DSD recorders the way they were meant to be used - as a replacement for a tape machine to be mixed if at all in the analog realm. Thats what DSD is all about - a purist format. Whether the potenital sonic benefits outweight the limitations of the format is a decision only the user can make.

Its not meant to be and cannot be a PT replacement, and should not be marketed as such, I think we all agree on that.

I think Pryamix was really cool, I just require a more music production oriented feature set - I'm a Logic guy through and through.

[Adler]

I respect that point of view, in that DXD certainly shouldn't be marketed as a replacement for Pro Tools. But I should point out that it my opinion and in the way that I use it, Pyramix is a very capable Pro Tools replacement (I use it at my studio for recording and mixing a variety of different genres, i.e., rock, hip-hop, R&B, acoustic, etc.). So perhaps Merging is looking for another way to get a leg up on the competition (I believe Pro Tools will soon have it's own DSD capabilities as well).

Anyway, I didn't intend to hijack this thread and make it into a Merging lovefest (I'm not being paid or endorsed by them); I just wanted to point out that their marketing hype is not really all that different than some of the other players.

Only my opinion, of course.

Chris

[loudist]

The flexability of DSD seems to be getting better.
As storage capacities of drives and the throughput gets faster every few months.
If Pyramix implemented a distributed computing scenario like Beowulf clusters the track count could be unlimited.

I am still curious (purely from a state of the art POV) if recording DSD, DXD, PCM then down sampleing the DSD DXD to PCM and then back again.... what sounds better, not theoretically or mathmatecially but actual listening enjoyment.

[Jules]

re deleted posts -

I think we can all debate new technology WITHOUT being insulting...

tutt

Stay on topic please.



Jules
Gearslutz.com admin

[robdarling]

As a modern production style format, DSD is still impractical. Give it another 5 years, though, as drives just get cheaper and computers faster, and you will see that change.

[raal]

Originally Posted by robdarling

As a modern production style format, DSD is still impractical. Give it another 5 years, though, as drives just get cheaper and computers faster, and you will see that change.

wouldn't this apply to DXD also? in 5 years i can't imagine file size being a problem either. doesn't it stand to reason that in time DXD will have the advantages of the PCM format + the sound we're all aspiring for?

question is, which will sound best? PCM has the definite edge as to editing/plugin implimentation.

[ToddS]

Originally Posted by cdog

My conclusion was that PCM can be way better sounding than people think it can and DSD/"DXD" is not necessarily better, just bigger. The problem was PCM coverters sounded like shit early on and got a bad rap, so people with unlimited resources (like Sony/ Phillips) looked for and developed alternatives, all while PCM was busy getting better and better: the technology was maturing.

I'm not saying PCM is the "ultimate" digital format, its clearly not, but it is clearly the most practical format we have to record with right now, and right now its pretty damn good... see: AD16X

I agree. Is there any new material coming out on SACD anymore? I thought this whole thing was dead an buried. I believe DSD and now DXD will eventually go the way of the MiniDisk, BetaMax, Divx, etc.

[zenmastering]

Try here:

www.sa-cd.net

Originally Posted by ToddS

I agree. Is there any new material coming out on SACD anymore? I thought this whole thing was dead an buried. I believe DSD and now DXD will eventually go the way of the MiniDisk, BetaMax, Divx, etc.